Democrats: GOP politicizing failed airline bombing

By Michael D. Shear
Top aides to President Obama are accusing Republicans of politicizing the failed Christmas Day airline bombing in ways they say Democrats did not during prior incidents.

Senior White house adviser David Axelrod said in an interview Wednesday that Democrats did not attack former president George W. Bush when he made no public statement for nearly a week after a similar attempted bombing in 2001 by shoe bomber Richard C. Reid.

"It's a contrast -- I think back to when Richard Reid did his deal. You didn't see leading Democrats out there condemning the administration," Axelrod said. "We all have a desire to see the strongest possible security. There are those who want to solve the problem and there are those who want to exploit it."

Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse said: "This episode highlights that on this issue Republicans are simply hypocrites, and it proves what we have said for a long time - there is nothing - no bounds whatsoever - to what they will politicize for their own political gain. What's more telling is that they have no shame in doing it - inconsistency, political opportunism and hypocrisy seem to define the Republican Party and their approach to politics and policy."

The political pushback comes in reaction to a concerted GOP effort to reclaim the national security issue from a young president they see as vulnerable.

Leading that charge once again is former vice president Dick Cheney, who said in a statement to Politico that Obama is making the country less safe by "pretending" that the U.S. is not at war with terrorists.

In the statement, Cheney leveled a broadly worded charge against Obama: "Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war? It doesn't fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn't fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency - social transformation -- the restructuring of American society. President Obama's first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."

In response, Axelrod lashed back, repeating his accusation that the Bush administration -- and Cheney -- failed to keep their focus on the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan.

"Cheney was out there today saying that the president doesn't recognize that we have a war on terror," Axelrod said. "This is the president who has made a very tough decision to refocus our efforts in Afghanistan after seven years of drift."

The back and forth between Obama aides and Cheney has been going on for months. The former vice president has emerged as the chief defender of the Bush administration and the most vocal critic of the new president.

The latest exchange centers on what Democratic aides say is a double-standard. They say Bush waited more than a week after Reid's attempted bombing in 2001 -- three days before Christmas -- to make his first public statement.

Bush, who was at Camp David when the incident occurred on Dec. 22, 2001, flew four days later to his ranch at Crawford, Texas for a family vacation. He did not talk about the case himself for nine days, according to reviews of news reports by several news organizations. At the time, Democrats did not criticize Bush for taking too long to react.

In a statement Wednesday, Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan wrote that "Republicans are playing politics with issues of national security and terrorism, and that they would use this incident as an opportunity to fan partisan flames and raise money for political campaigns tells you all you need to know about how far the Republican party has fallen and how out of step with the American people they have become."

Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.

How low can the Republicans go? I guess we got our answer to the question this past week when - instead of standing behind the President as the Democrats did in 2001 - they tried to score political points off of what could have been a fatal act of terrorism against a U.S. plane.

Perhaps, if instead of starting two costly wars Bush had just spent the money on creating a top notch terrorist watch system and hired more bomb sniffing dogs to deploy at the gates used by all U.S. bound U.S. airlines, terrorist creeps like Abdulmutallab wouldn't be able to board U.S. planes in the first place?

And perhaps if Sen. DeMint wasn't so phobic about unions and had allowed the nomination of a new head of TSA to come to a vote, that agency might be functioning a bit better? Blocking the head of TSA for no better reason than union bashing is not exactly the behavior of a true patriot and memo to Darth Vader Cheney -- "loose lips sink ship, Dick".

It is funny how people have gotten so worked up about this potential bombing. The damage it could do to this country is nothing compared to the damage the banks could do if not checked. Yet people idly sit by while their congressman and senators do nothing to prevent another crisis. A fire needs to be lit under congress.

I will take that wager any time/any day Jake. Rs don't even take her potential presidential run seriously but certainly the whacked out right are in her camp which obviously you are a part of. The SNL parody is precisely how the public views Palin so you better live with that. Once again I wish you and your whacked out friends much success in getting her nominated and you are welcome to post that she has a 90% approval rating if that in any way helps you in your endeavor. Understand that all Ds are hoping that she truly is your 2012 nominee. We will then welcome all moderates like Colin Powell and Bloomberg to switch parties which I have no doubt they would if that happened.

right powerful and internationally respected S.O.S.,US Senator from second most populus state who won 18 million primary votes on her own vs faux author of book being sold for $4.99, quitter governor from one of the least populist states in the country who helped sink a presidendial campaign, and oh and she can see Russia from her porch. Would love to see that matchup in 2016.

JakeD Cancer is not your expertise so why do you feel compelled to express your ignorance? If there is a gene which predisposes a person to developing lung cancer, if they smoke then it is the gene that is as much at fault as the smoker. Such a gene is suspected. Furthermore when cigarette companies entice and promote smoking and a person becomes addicted at a young age, less than sixteen, their chances of quitting are reduced compared to those who start after twenty. Eight per cent of lung cancers occur in non smokers and lung cancer existed before the smoking epidemic. Even in smokers who is to blame for the cancer, other than g/d is unclear.

And of course you would never blame g/d because you are afraid she will punish you if you do.

BTW, I was not addressing my comments to you. You are too tangential and disingenuous to converse with.

Rgee yes it is ridiculous to equate H.C. and Palin's politically or electability.

Get back with me about that when Palin his won 18 million primary votes. Personally I hope that happens, but no one other than a Hillary hater would even think of putting them on the same footing, in any sense.

I take this personally b/c I was a HC delegate, then a McCain supporter and then an Obama supporter like dozens of local HC delegates I know who acted similarly when McCain chose Palin. I have zero doubt that H.C. would have beaten McCain by the same if not a larger electoral vote then Obama. Apparently the H.C. haters here are as vocal as they were during the primaries, regardless of her loyalty to(which was questioned from day 1) the Obama Administration and her fine service as S.O.S. for our nation. To equate her intelligence or electability with Palin is insane. Polling of unaffiliated moderates in this country and you will find that less then 25% of them will support Palin. But as I stated before there is always hope she will win the R nomination in 2012.

Back on topic, at the official Obama blog today, White House Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer, quoted several public statements of Obama's that explicitly state we are at war:

"The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered."

REALLY? Well, Mr. Pfeiffer, actions speak louder than words (especially when Obama goes GOLFING right after addressing the issue but cuts the game short and races back to his vacation home when a friend's child slips and hurts himself). He is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war.

But we are at war, and when he ACTS like we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Just because it doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be his goal — social transformation — the restructuring of American society.

To answer your question, the U.S. Supreme Court later interpreted that clause to allow the creation of postal roads that were used for other concurrent purposes. A federal law of 1838 designated all existing "and future" railroads as post roads as well.

1) The U.S. government had received several worrisome reports about Abdulmutallab, including a warning from the man’s father. The CIA says the his name didn’t surface until November, but an earlier report about a person of interest known internally as “the Nigerian” was received in August.

2) Several clues to the unfolding plot were not shared sufficiently within the intelligence community. The CIA and the National Counterterrorism Center, which was created on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, did not adequately alert the FBI or others who might have acted on information they received.

And agencies did not trigger their own alarms by connecting clues about the suspect with other available data, which might have shown he posed a high risk. “Listmasters didn’t link up some of the data points that were vague but available,” a knowledgeable official said.

A U.S. intelligence official contended that the data points were too elliptical to be useful: “Abdulmutallab’s father didn’t say his son was a terrorist, let alone planning an attack. Not at all. I’m not aware of some magic piece of intelligence that suddenly would have flagged this guy — whose name nobody even had until November — as a killer en route to America, let alone something that anybody withheld.”

3) The transfers of the 198 inmates left in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will be slowed, and no more will go to Yemen in the foreseeable future.

5) Body scanners are likely to be much more widely used and deployed in U.S. airports. The list of people who receive special security screening is likely to be increased somewhat but not dramatically, because that would slow down travelers and dilute the attention to the highest-risk cases.

Ronald Reagan did not suddenly become "moderate" -- although he set in motion unforeseen events by picking "moderate" George Herbert Walker Bush as a running mate -- and they beat Jimmy Carter, so it can be done. I hope that Palin does NOT pick Romney as her VP, but even that would be preferable to another four years of Obama.

How so? And I'm speaking only to their electability on the national stage. They were both divisive personalities during the election. Polls during the last election cycle showed that there wasn't much middle ground with the voters on either one of them. People either loved them or hated them, and that made them liabilities to their respective parties. Since becoming SOS, Clinton has taken a much lower profile. Palin, on the other hand, has maintained her previous profile. I'm sure some of that is financially based, but I don't see her suddenly becoming a moderate in order to grow an electoral base.

To answer your question, the U.S. Supreme Court later interpreted that clause to allow the creation of postal roads that were used for other concurrent purposes. A federal law of 1838 designated all existing "and future" railroads as post roads as well.

JakeD wrote...
Who knows, maybe if you donate enough, you too can be appointed to some high government post that you aren't qualified too ; )

--------------------------------

You know, there are so many jobs in government I'm not qualified for, there must be something there for me. Personally, I'm thinking "Ambassador to Jamaica", or maybe "Ambassador to Texas", since they're kinda like a separate country, anyway.

Curious if you have any idea where FEMA is authorized under the federal Constitution. Take as many guesses as you need to name the Article and Section #.

Posted by: JakeD

I suppose it depends on what you're expecting to see. As long as it is not unconstitutional and is funded by Congress than it is authorized under the Constitution. Same constitutional foundation for NIH, NASA, the National Weather Service ... etc.

Of those listed above, you could at least say that FEMA exists [or was at least created] as an organ to assist the continued operation of government. I've never heard any one suggest that continued government function is not a legitimate role of government.

Get Congress to cut off the funding of FEMA and FEMA goes away. Though, expect that most if not all of the functions of FEMA will live on in another organ of government. If a hurricane hits the Gulf States don't expect to wake up to the Federal Government responding with ... "Not my job, good luck."

I presume you can find the Articles and sections of the Constitution that address Congressional appropriations.

An enumeration is required under the Constitution, other questions during the conduct of the census are not prohibited. It didn't take long for the Government to figure out other questions to ask.

But these types of arguments are not new. When the Federal government was interested in building a road Congress argued over whether they had the authority to build roads.

"To establish Post Offices and post Roads"

The authority to post roads was clear, but to build roads ... that was another matter. So where is the Constitutional authority to build roads? Congress approves funding for it and it's not unconstitutional.

RG to equate S.O.S. Clinton with Palin is patently ridiculous. And I have no doubt she would have defeated McCain with possible a larger electoral vote than Obama. Unfortunately Jake all the money in the world doesn't earn Palin a nomination but we wish you well in that endeavor. Didn't work for Phil Gramm or Guiliani.

Leichtman wrote...
technically you are right since the Shoe Bomber wasn't over American soil but that was precisely what was planned. I believe there was also a threat to the LA Airport and an incident athe Vancouver border sveral miles from reaching US soil. Incidentally we agree that Rs should have Palin/Bachmnan as their 2012 ticket. I would gladly send either a sizable contribution to make that happen.

---------------------------------

I don't think that there's a doubt in the world that the Democrats would love to see Palin heading up the Republican ticket in 2012. She's unelectable for the same reason Hillary Clinton became unelectable. Too divisive a presence to gain the vote of the true independent voters, and they're the ones that are critical to victory in a national election.

technically you are right since the Shoe Bomber wasn't over American soil but that was precisely what was planned. I believe there was also a threat to the LA Airport and an incident athe Vancouver border sveral miles from reaching US soil. Incidentally we agree that Rs should have Palin/Bachmnan as their 2012 ticket. I would gladly send either a sizable contribution to make that happen.

JakeD wrote...
Assuming arguendo said commandeering took place, the fact remains that there was no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001 until when Obama took over ...

-----------------------------------

Given what's been reported so far, it could be that events would have unfolded the same way regardless of who was President. Most terrorist attacks take a long time to plan and implement. Anything that's happened in the past year was likely underway long before Obama was elected, or in office. It's easy to point the finger at Obama, just as it's easy to point the finger at Bush. I don't think it's that simple.

I have only one problem with your response. Welfare, Medcare, Medicaid, and SS are not coddling the poor to win their votes. In fact many of the underclass do not have addresses and many states now require addresses and drivers licenses to be able to vote so they are less likely to vote then the privilidged. You suggest that the safety net for the poor, elderly and sick are hand outs to coddle them and earn their votes. I see it as a safety net to protect our country from becoming a third world nation as we saw under Hoover. Certainly we hope the underclass becomes educated and productive citizens but the one's I saw at the Astrodome were more concerned about receiving a warm meal and a place to lay their head, and honestly just staying alive. They could care less if it came from the Red Cross or from Fema. For some, not you, to suggest they should have just gotten into their Lexus and driven themselves to the Ritz Carlton (an obvious exageration) is simply naive.

There are so many other things going on under the radar that we will have many other extremely nasty surprizes in the coming months and years. Let's hope we will be able to pull together as we did after 9/11 and stay together longer.

There are so many other things going on under the radar that we will have many other extremely nasty surprizes in the coming months and years. Let's hope we will be able to pull together as we did after 9/11 and stay together longer.

There is only one way to get ahead of a holy war or to end it. You turn to God in truth vowing to change those things that are wrong in your understanding. Leviticus 26 is God's promise of terror and 4 x 7 curses UNTIL we turn to Him in truth. If this war ends without the word of God in power, there is no God. I said that around September 11, 2001. now it is December, 2009; it will not change until we do.

The nations are not even following the Ten Commandments known as the Sinai Covenant in Exodus 20. Jesus said, If they believe not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they believe though one rise from the dead. (Luke 16:31 was part of Jesus response to how to keep people out of torments after they die.)

The primary message of the Qur'an is to follow the whole Bible. Jesus said to live by every word of God.. The promise of God is terror and 4 x 7 curses UNTIL we turn to God in truth. (Matthew 4:4, Leviticus 23, and 26; Qur'an, Ahmadiyya Numbers: 5.68, 69; 42.14-16; judge by Torah- 5.43-49; Older Qur'an 7.158, 159) We cannot be upset that God is faithful to His word. It is all for our benefit. The true Mahdi, Messiah, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Savior etc. is The Word of God. Only when we believe can we be saved.

leichtman wrote...
RG I don't put myself in the category of extremes. My problem with GWB was less with ideology, although I did not agree with his agenda, but with the Rove doctrine of partisanship at any cost. It started with DeLay's redistricting and ended when I saw lawyers 1 year out of law school dictating who our US Attys should be; which had zero to do with compitence. Call that extreme of me to say, but politicizing the Justice Dept and the US Atts Office was the last straw and far more heinous than GWB's ideology. Again if I ever see that from Obama I will join those critics here.

-------------------------------
I understand your point. I also wasn't putting you into the group of extremists who write here. You can tell who they are most easily by the amount of name calling they do, and in some cases, the use of all caps, as if printing really big makes the point better. As I said in my other post, my main problem with Bush was that he allowed his presidency to be commandeered by the neo-cons after 9/11.

Actually I am aware of poverty and the various causes - and, my friend, there are many.

My parents came to the States as war refugees when I was in secondary school. I even know what it is like to hear your Dad crying at night because he can't find work or protect his family. I started volunteer work at the age of 13 - naturally, like most of my friends.

I also believe it is important to help people stand up to regain personal dignity, not be kept in their poverty with hand outs and codling so they keep voting for you (or buy your sick violent music CDs).

To my mind this is the responsibility of the strong and privileged - for instance, the leaders, police and teachers of NO since we are talking about Katrina.

I'll glady pay more taxes for student loans, small business start ups and the like. Walk in clinics are absolutely necessary as are things like free school lunches.

But you are right about one thing, I do not support the idea that a person should receive something for nothing, be it just giving a hand a couple of hours a week at the local school, park or old peoples' home. People need dignity and they get it by feeling they earned it.

RG I don't put myself in the category of extremes. My problem with GWB was less with ideology, although I did not agree with his agenda, but with the Rove doctrine of partisanship at any cost. It started with DeLay's redistricting and ended when I saw lawyers 1 year out of law school dictating who our US Attys should be; which had zero to do with compitence. Call that extreme of me to say, but politicizing the Justice Dept and the US Atts Office was the last straw and far more heinous than GWB's ideology. Again if I ever see that from Obama I will join those critics here.

leichtman wrote...
sorry RG evererything was not GWB's fault, just the way he incompitently and politically made appointments and refused adminstrative oversite. Selecting Brownie and firing the US Attys was not done for reasons of compitence but for pure raw reasons of political power. If I see Obama making appointments where compitency is not the primary consideration I will join your sentiments.

----------------------------------

If you follow the comments on these forums for awhile, you'll see what I mean. Generally, there are extreme partisans on both side of the discussion, with very few willing to have any real discussion.

As far as Bush goes, personally, I think that he might have ended up being viewed as a fairly moderate president over his term if not for 9/11. I think he basically lost control of his presidency after the attacks and ceded his power to the neo-cons, who, it's been documented, had a desire to attack Iraq for quite some time. History will have to determine what really happened, of course.

No Jake b/c that is an absoluetly stupid comment like saying that the founders didn't provide for highways, the FAA or the internet, except through the General Welfare clause. Perhaps we should go back to living in a horse and buggy world. You, Steele and Cheney will be thrilled if g** forbid there is another attack. How sick.

sorry RG evererything was not GWB's fault, just the way he incompitently and politically made appointments and refused adminstrative oversite. Selecting Brownie and firing the US Attys was not done for reasons of compitence but for pure raw reasons of political power. If I see Obama making appointments where compitency is not the primary consideration I will join your sentiments.

Not sure who "Chenney" is or what he is praying for, but I assure you that I am not praying for another 9/11 attack. The way Obama is going, however, that's like praying for no gunfire every time we pull the trigger on Russian Roulette.

You still haven't given me the Art. Sec. # in the U.S. Constitution for FEMA.

sally apparently you are oblivious to the fact that there are parts of American society that live in abject poverty, that do not have jobs, education, income or resources. Herbert Hoover was famous for hoovervilles where the poor, sickly and elderly lived, sounds like you would be just fine with that. Personally I am not for the US being a third world nation where large segments of our society live under bridges and worse. I spent a week at the Astrodome during Katrina helping these poor lost soles who had nothing more than a pillow that had brought with them and were most appreciative for the help. I strongly suggest you do some volunteer work at a shelter or the Red Cross to see how the other 1/2 lives. The tragedy is that you and others have zero understanding of how they live and would oppose welfare, social security,medicare, and medicaid if it were coming up for a Congressional vote today(would call its Socialism), and would urge the poor and elderly to just pull up their boot straps and fend for themselves.

SOME of the 1,836 people who lost their lives could have been saved by forced evacuations using those buses (but, instead, they were left to flood in the lots). You are going to blame THAT on President Bush too?!

No, Gator-ron, I'm not blaming NOLA for inaction "during" the six hours of the actual storm -- that picture of flooded buses proves that Dems could have done something to save lives BEFORE the storm however -- for instance, I also blame the lung cancer patient for smoking 2 packs a day for 30 years ; )

During Katrina the city was unable to function and needed help from the federal government simply because they had communication and transportation lines that the city did not. Blaming the city government for not acting in the aftermath is like blaming a cancer patient for having cancer.

I do know what FEMA is and I know how they functioned for years before Katrina and how they managed in the other parts that were devastated by Katrina.

I have no problem with New Orleans or its people. I believe in freedom of choice and personal responsibility, that's all.

If NO wanted to be the party town, more power to them.

They all knew they lived in a basin, in hurricane paths YET did not evacuate, didn't even have plans for evacuating old peoples' homes, not to mention hospitals.

They did not have plans nor put money aside over the years to provide for future crises - these were their perfectly democratic choices. All the choices they collectively made over the years resulted in a tragedy for many innocent people I feel very sorry for.

Guess I'm not a Democrat who believes I am not responsible - the government is!

the differenc Jake. Napolitano caught her stupid mistatement within 48 hours, corrected it, and is working to change the handling of the state dept's no fly list.Don't recall GWB ever changing or correcting his handling of Katrina, ever. The statement was made by her not Obama. The Brownie remark was made by GWB, and repeated in press conferences over and over again and to this day 5 years hence has never been changed. And yes those remarks about Katrina victims is totally racist, but what else is new, we expect as much.

We don't KNOW that this bomber would have tried this had McCain won.
__________________

That is correct, we don't know of they would have tried but I think they would have.

As for the response McCain might have had, we can only guess. In my opinion, the only things we can base asumptions on is what people have done before in their lives, not what they say they will or would do.

McCain was not at all a brilliant speaker probably because he has been a man of action his whole life (mostly for others) rather than "of words and ideas" and although he made mistakes (for which he always took responsibility) I honestly felt he was the kind of man I would want next to me in a crisis.

I must say it was much easier to find out about real actions McCain had taken (good & bad) than Obama where we were reduced to knowing he shafted a lady to get his first political post in Illinois, then his mentor during the campaign and wrote two books.

Putting myself in the position of "friend of this person" I figured my chance were better with a flawed McCain than a brilliant Obama... but others prefered the lofty ideals and words.

I hope Obama will rise to the situation and understand that this is not a political game to be won but the nation and in many ways the whole world.

sally curious if you have any idea who is in charge of FEEMA? I will give you one guess and that person is neither a mayor nor governor. It is truly sad and amazing that the right is trying to rationalize that total disaster of lack of adminstrative oversite by GWB and Brownie. Too bad. None of the historians including Douglas Brinkley who was living in N.O. at the time sees it the way you do with your partisan blinders on.

Heck of A Job Brownie will go down in history as the end of any oz of credbility he had left and the end of the GWB administration. Blame Ds, use racist, and make vile comments about Ds. That apparently is all your side has left.

Just goes to show that when democRATS are in charge of a city, you can expect failure, you can expect the black population to wait for the government to rescue them instead of doing the responsible thing and getting out of down. Both the Governor and Mayor of LA were democRATS, and did NOTHING!

Posted by: cschotta1 | December 30, 2009 4:14 PM

Darn right because the poor of New Orleans should have buckled themselves in their SUVs, driven out of town and rented a hotel room for a week. Darn poor are always causing problems.

Oh yes Katrina was handled brilliantly in your parallel universe. What planet was that on?

Posted by: leichtm
___________________________

If my memory serves me, it was in a Democrat city where an important portion of the police looted rather than save people and many, many "citizens" turned on each other and/or looted rather than help each other ... in a Democrat (Gov) State - local officals are always responsible for plans, first response to allow federal aid to come after a number of days.

I am sick of the "politically correct" denial of real responsibilities and behaviors in New Orleans! We had never seen such an implosion of simple humanity before when other terrible hurricanes struck elsewhere.

I didn't see any specific questions from you to me, but I just got back from lunch with the wife. You stated that Obama kept us safe "longer" (not if you count U.S. servicemen and women). Obama not calling the recruiting office and Fort Hood attacks "terrorism" doesn't mean they weren't, and your plan to divert all sky marshals to incoming international flights (ergo outgoing too) simply allows al Qaeda to go back to using domestic flights. If you are still around, and want to discuss, let me know.

Oh yes Katrina was handled brilliantly in your parallel universe. What planet was that on?

Posted by: leichtman

Just goes to show that when democRATS are in charge of a city, you can expect failure, you can expect the black population to wait for the government to rescue them instead of doing the responsible thing and getting out of down. Both the Governor and Mayor of LA were democRATS, and did NOTHING!

I really hate this nastiness. It does us all a great diservice and is so childish.

Since the innauguration only Bush and his wife have shown any dignified restraint and sincere, personal care for victims of terror (Ft. Hood) and Americans in general. Obama had to let rip snide remarks during his innaugural speech and it hasn't stopped since - on either side.

The only problem I have with this latest spat about being "at war" or not is to read that Obama's handler in chief is using a term I understood they had banned from the "new" vocabulary:

Did Axelrod really say "we have a war on terror" now?

from the article:
"Cheney was out there today saying that the president doesn't recognize that we have a war on terror," Axelrod said.

Maybe Obama didn't react fast enough or strongly enough. I think it's a stupid argument, but maybe he didn't. I would still take Obama over Bush and/or Cheney on anything national security-related, any day. Bush and Cheney have no credibility left.

While Obama is calling this incident an isolated potential civil criminal act, most Americans see this as an act of war - an attempt to kill many, many people based on an evil religious-based hatred for Americans. The man should be summarily shot, and we should immediately retalliate in a way that kills many of the enemy. Yes, the radical Moslim world has declared war on the U.S. We cannot dismiss that fact. And we must respond so they think twice before they prepare for another attack.

Posted by: DaveHardin | December 30, 2009 3:50 PM

and that response should be what? Lets try this. You have a crime wave happening in a neighborhood. Do you:

A. Show up kicking down doors and shooting the place up?

B. Work with the community to identify the criminals and take them out.

so what else is new? FEAR, HATRED, RACISM, DICK CHENEY & THAT IDIOT KING FROM NEW YORK. HEY, WAIT A DAMN MINUTE HERE!! who opened that PANDORAS BOX of problems? well somebody else clean up this mess!!! WE REPUBLICANS DON'T HAVE THE TIME!! we're to busy spreading fear, loathing, hatred, and oh, yeah.....pretending that we're not rascists. GET IT!? ZEICH HEIL!!!

as to honoring and recognizing our fallen soldiers when they arrive at Dover airforce base(which GWB wanted to conceal ), I can think of nothing more honorable that this administration has done since assuming office.

Doesn't matter which party is in "control". This country could be bombed off the face of the earth and one party (whoever was left) would blame the other party. That's what's really wrong; partisanship to the point of self-absorbed, stagnant government.

its curious that the right would claim that Ds are politicizing national security. If anything deserved to be politized by Ds this action by Sen. DeMint certainly deserved to be, but wasn't.

A former Bush national security official told ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” on Tuesday that Republicans should “move on beyond the union issues” which are currently being used by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to block an up-or-down vote on President Obama’s pick to head the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

While Obama is calling this incident an isolated potential civil criminal act, most Americans see this as an act of war - an attempt to kill many, many people based on an evil religious-based hatred for Americans. The man should be summarily shot, and we should immediately retalliate in a way that kills many of the enemy. Yes, the radical Moslim world has declared war on the U.S. We cannot dismiss that fact. And we must respond so they think twice before they prepare for another attack.

Would anything have happened differently if McCain had won instead of Obama? No, because the system that allowed the guy to get onto the plane was put in place by Bush/Cheney after 9/11. I wonder what the right wing idiots who look to blame Obama for anything and everything would have said then? They would still have tried to find a way to shift blame to the Dems. Talk about cynicism and hypocracy.... Keep it up, Repubs, keep it up...your true colors are showing!

Ds politicized intelligence??
By insisting on a 911 Commission that your side tried tirelessly to block being created or being enacted, or by the scummy commercials runs against a war hero in a Georgian Senate race, by the disgusting 2004 R National Convention speakers or perhaps by outing Valerie Plame?

Right on, silencedogoodreturns! President Bush never tried to DENY that we are at war. Here is Dick Cheney’s full statement on the matter:

"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."
Posted by: JakeD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C'mon Jake you know better. Dubya prosecuted and jailed 193 terrorists. Who released prisoners from Guantanamo to Yemen? Who let Saudi appointed imans into the military and federal prison system? Telling Pakistan to take out the Quetta shura or our drones will not strong enough for you? How about telling our CIA operatives to get after the Yemen bombing cell? Weak is denying Tommy Frank's his 400,000 men and putting in a failed Condi Rice plan instead.

Maybe because Cheney and his sock-puppet prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001, but your guy can't. I don't blame GWB for 9/11 (unless you think he personally planted demolition charges at the WTC?). You don't blame FDR for Pearl Harbor, do you? AFTER that attack, however, if FDR went on a world-apology tour instead of fighting the war wherever they were (Algeria didn't attack us on 12/7 either), then history books would not be very kind to him.

Posted by: JakeD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama has kept the American soil safe 2 months longer than Dubya without a London, Madrid, Bali to put up on the terrorist scorecard. Facts are stubborn things Jake.

“This episode highlights that … Republicans are simply hypocrites, and it proves what we have said for a long time - there is nothing - no bounds whatsoever - to what they will politicize for their own political gain. What's more telling is that they have no shame in doing it - inconsistency, political opportunism and hypocrisy seem to define the Republican Party and their approach to politics and policy.”

go to mit, stanford, or ga tech and hire some of those bright engineering students who win contests each year.............
*******************

This is what passes for conservative intellect and management: "Find the smart guys and tell 'em to git 'er done!"

Yo. Those MIT boys and girls you're lauding are all over this stuff and have been for years. They work at Sandia National Lab and other superlabs. It takes years to develop and "commercialize" this technology. Worse, it ultimately does nothing to ensure we're protected: the perps will always come up with a new way to defeat our technology.

So, the answer is not a "War on Terrorism" and Star Wars programs that suck the life out of badly needed social support. The only answer is far more effective police work. It's hard enough, but it's even more challenging because we have to have international cooperation.

Gotta love the conservatives these days: comic book solutions to life's challenges.

pro there are already x ray machines that some airports are using that would have detected the expolsives. The problem: it cost money something Rs constantly yell about. The pruffer machines you reference are inconsistant, surprised you haven't juped to blame that on Obama as well. Pesronally I would love to see more Israeli type interrorgations of these dirt bags, and this comment is being made by someone who has been accused here of being a left wing civil libertarian.

Hope this is not too hard for you Jake, South American and Canadian flights are not transfer points for terrorists. A few thousand marshalls can cover the rest of the incoming int'l flights is beyond your comprehension. Will domestic flights and outbound suffer, surely but they pose little threat.

Dick Cheney is a bitter, SICK man, who knows he was a failure in his babysitting job, the only reason Daddy selected him to be vice-president! If Chney and Bush had done their job and gotten rid of the Bush family friend, Osama Bin Laden, instaed of protecting him, the terrorist threat would be back down to "normal?", with just a few disorganized crazies.

I have never gotten ANY impression that Obama is denying the war that Cheney denied and ignored! Didn't he JUST beep up forces?? I think the senile old man. Cheney better just gat out and take his morning constitutional and try to wear off some of his guilty remnants of what USED TO BE a conscience! Every time he opens his mouth, it's obvious his conscience is TRYING to break through that concrete!

Republicans are rightly concerned; it would have been better for Republicans had the attack been successfully and Americans killed. The FACT that Republicans are hurting our country by blocking the nomination of a TSA chief? Irrevelant. According to Republicans no one at the TSA does anything, or does anything right, and what we need to is privatize, e.g., we could turn the TSA into a new Blackwater or Halliburton.

Have you no shame.
You don't blame GWB for 911 but you blame Obama for a failed strike. Curious what you would be telling us Jake had a POTUS Gore been aslepp at the wheel b/w inauguration day and 911 with Condi ignoring memos and terrorists training in Fla. We all know what the hypocrits like Chenney would have been saying. Most of us are simply sick to death of EVERYTHING in this country being politicized for partisan political advantage or have we totally forgotten how war hero Max Cleland was slimmed in his re election. Guess you guess also have no problem with Sen. DeMint's holding up confirmation of the Homeland Security czar. We are all just sick to death on the verge of a new year of EVERYTHING being partisan. How about some RNC civility for the New Years and an end of attacks on POTUS on issues that were to stop at the water's edge?

Hmmm..
You mean former president Clinton, the guy who left office with a budget surplus?
The guy who caught the original World Trade bombers,(who now reside in Super MAX prison?)
THAT Bill Clinton?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bubba was a good domestic president ending lifetime welfare, creating jobs and taking people out of poverty. He was a basket case with the military and foreign policy Kosovo withstanding, having cut the military to allow the Rwanda slaughter and Bin Laden to plot against us in Afghanistan. Dubya unbelievably was worse, going into Iraq while the Taliban grew in strength in Afghanistan and Pakistan depleting an overstretched/under-equipped stop loss military. In repealing Glass-Steagall banks paid billions in taxes with years waiting trades executed for profit giving Bubba his surplus. That same gambling got us into today's mess, with countries like Canada not allowing banks to gamble having no banking collapse.

Maybe because Cheney and his sock-puppet prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001, but your guy can't. I don't blame GWB for 9/11 (unless you think he personally planted demolition charges at the WTC?). You don't blame FDR for Pearl Harbor, do you? AFTER that attack, however, if FDR went on a world-apology tour instead of fighting the war wherever they were (Algeria didn't attack us on 12/7 either), then history books would not be very kind to him.

Bells blu - as soon as BO and his adminstration place the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" back into their vocabulary - they you can talk.....but these idiots seem and what to ignore the fact of life. "Why can't we all just get along if I make nice"......He and Bolder have their heads up each others butts...and continue to ignore the obvious.....simply amazing...I mean com'on..."an isolated extremists"? Now repeat after me....an Islamic Terrorist...once again but louder..."AN ISLAMIC TERRORIST"......See - that's not so hard.

Posted by: short1
==========================

My understanding is that it wasn't until G.W. bush slimed his way into office to divide the nation that we heard and saw terrorists as part of our daily media consumption.

Wanna know why?

It took everyones eyes off of massive thievery.

The entire point of America's security is to PROTECT America's way of life.

Our security people are SUPPOSE to work behind the scenes keeping us safe ( which enables everyone to do the "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" thing.

But Bush wanted to change what America is and it stands for.. so it was Terror, terror terror... Terror Color codes, terrorist activities, terror threats, and world class fear mongering. (Not to mention demanding the right to torture people, including American citizens)

You want you daily "FIX" of terror, watch FOX.

However, giving terrorists a Microphone, spotlight and stage is NEVER a good idea... you only get crowds of wanna-be's.

The president does not have planes flying into buildings, nor people dying in New Orleans, he has a security problem whose unacceptable failure must be addressed. Marshals on all int'l flights to the U.S. is a start, along with all Netherlands to U.S. flights getting screening equipment. The overall failure of shared intel was appalling. How a person can board an Int'l flight without luggage, nor passport is beyond me. Obama put the word out for increased operations in Yemen to bring that cell to justice. 70 million to fight Al Qaeda in Yemen, getting Pakistan to rid Swat Valley of terrorists, drone attacks taking out hundreds of terrorists and a better part of leadership, an army given what is needed by Gates, doubling our Afghan ground presence in 15 months, tell this American Obama is not doing too bad a job of being CIC. Glad to see your back Jake, any retorts?

Well, what else is new, Dicky-Boy Cheney is squawking and his confused, blind, greedy followers are listening and chiming in. How prude. This is the man who was in the white house with his puppet, George W. Bush, when America WAS ATTACKED by Al Queda. This is the man who decided with his puppet George W. Bush and his scapegoat Colin Powell, to invade Iraq instead of focusing attention on the enemy that the U.S. had the MOST EVIDENCE of attacking the nation. In early 2008, the Pentagon released a report outlining after 600 interviews and interrogations in Iraq, there was no link to be found between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda. Mmm, interesting. Didn't get broadcast all that much but yet evidence of the deceit of the previous administration. One wonders how Dick Cheney can continue to run his mouth after all that he has cost this nation. One wonders how anyone can listen and follow this loud mouth, rhetoric spewing, hypcrit!!!

I have been registered with the American INDEPENDENT Party since 1967. How about you?

Posted by: JakeD
========================

"I" am the subject of many of the rights talking points... "I" am a liberal Dem.

I disagree with many of your points on the basis of their being to product of spin.

You CLAIM the president's response to this was somehow flawed.

I don't think so, but I question your motives because the last guy in that office SKATED past losing two of the tallest buildings on the face of the earth.... FROZE while we were under attack and disappeared for three solid days before saying a word.

So your point seems to lack SCALE since you are willing to overlook Bush's dereliction of duty on the morning of 9/11/01, but are upset about a NEAR disaster under president Obama.
==============================
==============================

Bells blu - as soon as BO and his adminstration place the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" back into their vocabulary - they you can talk.....but these idiots seem and what to ignore the fact of life. "Why can't we all just get along if I make nice"......He and Bolder have their heads up each others butts...and continue to ignore the obvious.....simply amazing...I mean com'on..."an isolated extremists"? Now repeat after me....an Islamic Terrorist...once again but louder..."AN ISLAMIC TERRORIST"......See - that's not so hard.

Are you serious?
Don't you remember that the Democrats and the left attacked Bush relentlesly for 8 years about his "slow" reaction to 911?
He wasted a whole 15 or 20 minutes as I recall. If he didn't waste that time the second bulding could have been saved, right? Yes, a movie about it was even made by Mike Moore.
Posted by: nychap44
*******

A Republican Wingnut Club membership test. This person scored 100% and got in! Study up, and you can too. Good luck!

1. When the daily intelligence briefing handed to you by your National Security Adviser says that a well-known international terrorist who is wanted for a previous strike on the US is "determined to attack the US", this is:

[ ] Actionable intelligence

[x] Intell noise that a president could be forgiven for ignoring, even after 3,000 people are dead

2. When someone deep in the bowels of the country's security apparatus gets a phone call from a nervous parent, among several thousand other similar info tidbits that day, this is:

[x] Actionable intelligence that a president should be held personally responsible for, even if no one (thank heavens and a quick Dutchman) ends up getting killed

[ ] An intell signal that we need to find better ways of sorting out from the noise

I have been registered with the American INDEPENDENT Party since 1967. How about you?

Posted by: JakeD
========================

"I" am the subject of many of the rights talking points... "I" am a liberal Dem.

I disagree with many of your points on the basis of their being to product of spin.

You CLAIM the president's response to this was somehow flawed.

I don't think so, but I question your motives because the last guy in that office SKATED past losing two of the tallest buildings on the face of the earth.... FROZE while we were under attack and disappeared for three solid days before saying a word.

So your point seems to lack SCALE since you are willing to overlook Bush's dereliction of duty on the morning of 9/11/01, but are upset about a NEAR disaster under president Obama.

Finally. It's unfortunate that Democrats have to even waste time pushing back on this when we have real problems to address, but the Republican noise machine had gotten SO over the top that they had to.

The GOP has just been outrageous with their hypocritical comments trying to exploit this. This sums it up though - the Richard Reid incident was comparable in every way to this one, and the Dems didn't exploit it. What's sad though is that it's the media too. They rolled over and played dead for Dubya, but they are looking all Mighty Tough and Concerned here in this identical incident.

Just shameful. And I'm talking to you, Ruth Marcus and Gene Robinson. Trying to build your creds with Fred Hiatt's murderous Iraq War gang by applying a double standard does NOT speak well for your professionalism - or your morals. Even associating with these war criminal abettors effectively dirties you.

If anybody here thinks that this incident wouldn't have happened with a different president, you're in outer space - crap will continue to happen because we're human beings and people will either err or be incompetent - I doubt if party affiliation had anything to do with those responsible for letting this nutcase through--

JakeD:
So you're a birther, and a nut? Wait, I repeat myself. If you're on the side of Orly Taitz, you are in some really odd company.
Have you seen Dick Cheney's long-form birth certificate? He could be a cyborg, pasted together with spare parts from dead GIs for all you know. Or hatched in a Tleilaxu flesh vat.
I guess it doesn't really matter what anyone says; you want the President of the United States to fail. You would say anything, repeat any falsehood, ape any talking point, to bring him down. You, sir, are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Attacking the motivations of the President's critics will not convince anyone the President is doing a good job. The tough reality is that a very serious security failure occurred on his watch, and his administration's response has failed to inspire oonfidence.

Back on topic: pointing out that we are still at war is NOT "politicizing" anything -- I am a registered INDEPENDENT -- the DEMS trying to deny that we are at war and blaming Bush, however, are politicizing this.
===========================

I figure you for a former Republican who is now an independant BECAUSE of G.W. Bush and his abject inability to live up to his billing as any sort of leader.

The woods are FULL of former Republicans for just that reason.

It's sort of hard to cheer for someone for 8 long, dark, war and terror filled years, but many did... until their homes started being foreclosed and their jobs dried up and blew overseas....

So perhaps THAT explains your current position.. or perhaps not...I don't claim to know.

However, we were at war during Bush's failed presidency, and our Dem elected leaders fell silent as our nation was driven further and further off course, and our national identity was tainted by our former president insisting on the right to torture people.. and when THAT didn't work, trying to redefine what torture is..

It wouldn't be so bad if the Repubs fell silent for a while instead of whining all the time about everything our current president is effective doing on behalf of the American people.

However, that would require them to be a class act, and NOBODY ever accused them of having any class.

You and I are at war supposedly -- we didn't even get to Joe Wilson's "LIAR speech" which is proving to have been right all along -- but it looks like you have just rode off the field ... guess who won by default?

MINOR ISSUE?! Do you think it would have been "minor" to the friends and families of those KILLED had this terrorist attack been successful? Do YOU think we are at war, yes or not?

Posted by: JakeD | December 30, 2009 1:02 PM
----------------------------------------
I'm at war with ignorant people and you seem to fit that profile. So... YES! you and I are at war. Now go **** yourself.

Back on topic: pointing out that we are still at war is NOT "politicizing" anything -- I am a registered INDEPENDENT -- the DEMS trying to deny that we are at war and blaming Bush, however, are politicizing this.

Are you serious?
Don't you remember that the Democrats and the left attacked Bush relentlesly for 8 years about his "slow" reaction to 911?
He wasted a whole 15 or 20 minutes as I recall. If he didn't waste that time the second bulding could have been saved, right? Yes, a movie about it was even made by Mike Moore.

The President has repeatedly and specifically said the US is at war with Islamic extremists. He has doubled-down on Afghanistan, increased drone strikes in Pakistan, and initiated drone strikes in Yemen. Yet he's still a closet Muslim and weak on terror? The Republicans will stop at nothing to sow fear and doubt. Their mantra for 2010 will be that Obama is a failure, even if employment rises and the economy continues to improve. Maybe if he invades Somalia and cleans out the pirates, then the Republicans will STFU.

Multiple sky marshalls on every flight worldwide would STILL not prevent it. Besides, there are over 30 MILLION flights per year and no way we could get that many sky marshalls in the air (we "barely" have over one million active duty military ; )

Defending the country both physically and fiscally must be the utmost priority.. otherwise, gay marriage, taxpayers paying for abortions and healthcare are Moot Issues! When an administration refuses to admit we are in a war against terrorism, it makes them look downright silly!
However, it all comes back to Americans who voted for this administration and their agenda to experiment with socialism.
Sure, Europe would love for us to become socialists just like them, then we can share their problems..misery loves commpany!

Within the last three days comments appeared in newspapers and on the internet suggesting that the Detroit bomber entered a US airplane in Amsterddam without a passport, claiming that he was a Sudenese refugee. A comment was made stating "we do this all the time". How is it possible that someone can enter the U.S. without a passport? What is this program? Who is responsible for this program? How many refugeees are involved? Who vets them? Who pays for their health, education and welfore? Where do they go in the U.S.? What is their religion? What are their skils? Do they replacce other refugees with better skills? What part does politics or Acorn play in this program?What the hell is going on here?

The two big question, of course, are (1) How much does this program take away from our own citizens who need help, such as education and health and how much does this add to our health care costs? Doesn't the U.S. have plenty of underskilled CITIZENS who could use a little help. No wonder our health care costs are rising!
The second issue has to do with security. This program is a perfect cover for alQuada to slip in sleeper terrorists or actual terrorists as the Detroit bomber.
If there ever was a need for an investigative repost, this is it. Go for it, WaPo!

As someone who flies frequently (w/ gold-elite status on Delta) I take the matter seriously.

I'm GLAD that the Rs are "politicizing" the Christmas bombing. We're 8 years into the "war on terror" (well, 26 years if you start with the Beirut Marine bombing).

But for all the billions spent to date (and all the shoes sniffed and toothpaste tubes seized), we still cannot prevent underpants-boy from boarding a flight?

Really, U-boy succeeded in his mission.

U-boy got to where he began to detonate the bomb. It was merely fate (God's blessing?) that kept the bomb from killing the plane and all onboard. That, and the flying Dutchman who showed some initiative to put out the fire.

Backing up just a bit, by the time U-boy was checking in for his overseas flight, it was too late. THere sould've been agents at the counter, ready to nab him as he walked up to confirm his boarding pass. U-boy never should have gotten near the airplane, let alone 95% the way to Detroit.

If security cannot deny flight to a guy whose own father narc'ed him out to the US intelligence agencies, then who ARE we looking for?

I say, let's politicize this matter to high heaven. Heads should roll, beginning with Janet Nap. Find some modern equivalent of Curtis Lemay, make him (her?) the Secretary of Homeland Security, and make air safety work.

Considering that RBC is worth upwards of $100 million, I think he'll do just fine without Obamacare, thank you very much. Your personal hero, Keith Olbermann, has pledged to go to jail rather than be forced to buy Obamacare too ; )

jeffwacker wrote:
"There is essentially no bound to the hypocrisy and hatred of Republicans. They want nothing more than to see Obama fail, and they're happy to see the nation go down with him if that's what it takes. They want to make everything about how they hate him, and they're perfectly willing to let their opinions dictate their facts and beliefs."

What, did you just arrive here from another solar system? Dems did the same thing to Bush for 8 years. And for 8 years before that, Clinton got the same treatment from Republicans, and before that, Bush Sr. and Reagan got it from Dems, etc. Stop whining and learn to live with it. You got your guy in, now you expect real Americans to drink the Kool Aid too.

Cheney said, "President Obama's first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."

IMHO -- Dickey-Poo, you would be dead for lack of highly-skilled taxpayer paid medical care that is to this day keeping you alive. Eliminate your free medical care and it'd be one way to "defend us" against an enemy -- YOU!

Right on, silencedogoodreturns! President Bush never tried to DENY that we are at war. Here is Dick Cheney’s full statement on the matter:

"As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

“He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society. President Obama’s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war."

The only real way planes will be safe is to have sky marshals on every flight, and 2-3 on international flights. NEITHER party is working to solve the problems, throwing stones is just an annoying distraction while nothing gets fixed.

There is essentially no bound to the hypocrisy and hatred of Republicans. They want nothing more than to see Obama fail, and they're happy to see the nation go down with him if that's what it takes. They want to make everything about how they hate him, and they're perfectly willing to let their opinions dictate their facts and beliefs.

Top aides to President Obama are accusing Republicans of politicizing the failed Christmas Day airline bombing in ways they say Democrats did not during prior incidents.
-----------
In prior incidents, the Govt didn't respond as if it was just another traffic accident or attempted bank robbery. As long as this President doesn't get it, he has earned all the condemnation that can be heaped on him.

Throwing bricks from the sideline is standard operating procedure for members of the party out of power.

There are legitimate non-partisan questions awaiting answers. Since the attack on the Saudi counter terrorism chief in August, the new tactic of bombs concealed below the waist by the terrorists was revealed. How has the security apparatus domestically moved to address this threat since then?